Slashdot Mirror
Study Finds Linux 'Ready For Prime-time'
An anonymous reader tipped us to a Techworld article proclaiming Linux as the next big thing ... again. A study of IT directors, VPs and CIOs has concluded that within five years the open-source OS will be running more than half of all important business applications. From the article: "In short, open source, especially Linux, is being legitimized by the major enterprise vendors, and user executives are more than happy to believe them ... Microsoft's thawing toward Linux is now easier to understand when faced with such data - even as Windows continues to grow as the other main server platform of choice."
Of course it is. My previous company have sold a lot of Ubuntu preinstalled computers, and users really loved it. All they needed was a short (about 20 minutes) introduction to the environment, and that's it.
I still receive phone calls from our customers' friends asking if we can install Ubuntu on their computers.
Good you're talking about preloaded systems. Most linux-is-bad people compare preinstalled Windows with self-installed Linux, which is a total nonsense. And some of them even blame Linux for having to partition their harddrive to use both OSes. And some of them blame Linux for disappearing boot loader after Windows reinstall. Kinda sad.
Can we force them to install Windows without a restore disc that's pre-loaded with drivers? "Here's a plain Windows XP SP1 install disc. Install it, then go hunt down some drivers so that you can get SP1 to work on SATA drives so it can even be installed, which will be with terrible graphics because you need to install your graphics drivers after the OS is installed." (SATA drivers had to be loaded on a floppy to install SP1 on them. Linux had SATA support before Windows did...well, as soon as SATA drives came out, really. SP2 did correct that issue with Windows, though) So, ignoring the SP1 + SATA thing, without a restore disc with slipstreamed drivers, it's a pain in the butt. Linux does better in that regard because of the monolithic kernel. There's at least a few less drivers to hunt down.
look! it's a bird, it's a plane, it's....a girl? yes, a girl browsing Slashdot on Linux
In my experience, 5 years is too far away to make for a worthwhile prediction. If it is that far away, we are just guessing. Far too much can happen in that time (economic downturn, anyone?)
Further, my last employer was a Windows shop. The infrastructure was designed around proprietary MS security and authentication. They don't want linux. They don't care what it runs or what it can do. If you don't have an MCSE, you aren't qualified to work there (>1600 IT employees for a company of ~9000). We made several server purchases from Dell that would have been better served by Sun (per application specs). That never happened and never will. Why having linux as an option will make a difference I have no idea.
The worst thing is that this is the norm in my experience. I use a Mac and have been called a zealot (though I use Win2k and Solaris as well) but those who use nothing other than Windows are just plain IT people. The true zealots are the Windows only users and they exist and are in control of the IT departments.
Surveys that ask if you would be willing to use something have little validity. Nearly everyone is willing to try something on a survey but in real life, the story is very different.
The Novell/Microsoft deal is not Microsoft "thawing toward Linux", it is Microsoft attempting to exploit the patent system to spread their FUD in new ways because all other efforts have been ineffective. It is becoming tiresome to see this lie perpetuated. I know the Novell/Microsoft press release claimed it was all about interoperability between Windows and Linux but that was just a red herring for those not familiar with Microsoft's business history, and it sounds a lot better to Novell's customers than "Novell management cashes out and does long-term harm to the company in exchange for a short term financial benefit".
Here is a simple question for anyone who believes the interoperability cover story, if Microsoft actually cared about interoperability why would they be paying Novell, or anyone else for that matter, hundreds of millions of dollars? Microsoft is the only organization in the world that has access to both complete Microsoft source code and Linux source code, if they wanted interoperability they would be in a better position than anyone else. Or, without spending a dime, they could simply release the specs which already exist internally for any number of proprietary non-standard pieces of software such as active directory protocols, smb/cifs protocols, exchange server, ntfs specs, wmv, etc etc. Rather than force everyone to reverse-engineer everything.
I don't doubt that Linux will experience significant growth over the next few years, but this particular article is just more phb-oriented magazine filler.
I believe that attitudes such as this are actually holding back the adoption of Linux. It creates a sense that the proponents of Linux are all driven by their hatred of Microsoft rather than a cool-headed and objective choice of which operating system is better for a given situation.
SharePoint is going to me Microsoft's collaboration tool of choice and not only does Linux not play with it, it doesn't have a competing offering.
Do you mean there's no open source competitive offering? Because there are products like Stoneware. That used to run on Linux, haven't checked up on it in a couple years but it offers web portal features, single sign-on, application framing. I'm not sure what else you'd want a competing product to do.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
It's the usual game of lock-ins and lock-outs. Microsoft is trying to lock people in - Linux (= a subset of the OSS community, and mostly nothing to do with the kernel) is trying to create compatible solutions to unlock them. As for Linux always copying Microsoft - somehow I don't think Microsoft is intentionally trying to spite their customers, to get best cost/gain ratio by cutting costs, obsoleteing products and charging monopolist prices sure, but I don't think there's anyone at Microsoft thinking "Hmm.. I got this great product we could sell, but that'd be too good for them. Let's give them some half-assed jumble instead."
Microsoft employ a lot of smart people, they have plenty experience, plenty HCI studies, plenty user feedback. Yes, marketing dictates that they need to put out new products no matter if the customer is happy with the current ones, but unless you consider Widnows XP perfect then there's plenty *real* improvements they can do in addition to the wizzy "new look". There's a good change they know that "ok, looks will get us this far but we need to actually deliver on a few things too". That's not to say that Linux should try to chase every distraction but SharePoint isn't just a Microsoft flirt. Many businesses want SharePoint, or something like SharePoint.
Do you know what the Microsoft products often really are to the Linux community (and I bet this'll get moderated as flamebait)? It's the rallying flag, it puts everyone on target about "what are we making". "An excel clone, a photoshop clone, a sharepoitn clone". It's the closest thing many projects have to a vision or functional goal (because they won't/can't agree on their own, bazaar thing). That doesn't mean you don't take good ideas from other places, scratch your own personal itches and so on, but it's putting everyone on the same track. It's easy to say "let's go our own way" but when hundred different developers go hundered different ways, you rarely get very far. And then "well Widnows is doing ti, so it can't be half bad" is the compromise.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Yes.
I remember trying RH some years ago, and could barely get it off the ground.
Then, last year, I was trying to set up Wordpress under Windows, and just couldn't get it going, so I stuck Ubuntu Linux on a box. It installed like a dream, and I had one problem with the wireless card (I bought a new one!), and then it was fine. I now do Wordpress development on it.
It's a lot, lot better. I believe it's moved from "hardcore geek" to "power user" level. You still get some setup problems, it's not as easy as grabbing a PC from Dell, and nor will it do certain things so easily (like games, DVD playback, well-known applications).
So, it's not ready for Joe User to set up... yet. However, Ubuntu is quite straightforward, though. Installing software and upgrades is probably easier than Windows.
Incidentally, I agree with what you say in general. There's a whole lot more than the technical merits of Linux to consider.
Download a live ISO (or get Ubuntu to send you a CD) and try it as a live CD. I'd be interested to hear how you get on.
Does that mean installing/uninstalling software under linux is now standardized, logical and quick, even for people who never used it before? Have you ever watched a new linux user try to install all their software onto a linux box without any help? Linux will not get any mainstream adoption until THAT need is addressed, and that's a promise.
Promise all you want. Linux is already mainstream.
We're talking server here. The article is talking server. The thing it overlooks is that Linux is *already* a major enterprise player.
And when it comes to installing / uninstalling enterprise server software, MS-Windows doesn't have a standard way of installing/uninstalling. The "putting the software where it goes" piece is covered: every major GNU/Linux distro has a standard way of installing and uninstalling. MS-Windows has a semi-standard way.
But the hard part isn't putting the software where it needs to go. The hard part is setting up Cisco Call Manager, or Oracle Financials, or Apache / IIS / whatever.
As far as the desktop is concerned, you lock it down (easy to do in Linux), and set up automatic updates from a central, controlled server. Roll out your updates when the users aren't logged on, and make a forced logout procedure so users can't be logged on unless they are scheduled to work at that time.
Users should never install their own software at work. That is the second-worst cause of computer failure in the workplace. (The number one cause is incompetent admins.)
With Linux, you don't even have to worry about viruses, so you don't have the hell that AV software brings.
But, to answer your post: Linux isn't like MS-Windows.
Thank God.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
We're trying to incorporate more Linux systems in our office, but as an accounting firm, almost everything is Windows only. From Quickbooks to the ProSystemFX suites of Engagement and Tax, we're pretty well stuck on Windows for the most part.
:) I think it's going to be good. My younger took about 3 minutes to look around, and the next thing I knew, she had changed her background and theming - I was really impressed. AAAAAaaanyway, back to the discussion.
That said, we've been working with Citrix on an experimental basis in order to add better remote functionality to our staff - and Linux boxes might wind up being the way to go on the client end. I know I've been using Ubuntu on my laptop exclusively for a year now, and a lot of our users have been coming up to me and asking what the deal is with the cube and whatnot (Beryl - check it out if you haven't yet, very very cool - http://www.beryl-project.org/), and I just use remote desktop to manage servers and once in a while run Windows apps if I really need to.
Also, and this is a total self-serving link, I just wrote about giving my kids Linux laptops. http://endcycle.blogspot.com/ - SO FAR, they love Edubuntu. We'll see how long that lasts, though.
--endcycle--
BS. I am using a default ubuntu install right now. I make a file called foo.deb
I then use nautilus to browse to it and double click on it. It opens "gdebi", a very nice simple package installer/deb reader GUI.
If I use a real deb, it gives me a nice button with a green checkmark labeled "Install Package". The first tab it gives me is the package description. The second tab is "details" listing the maintainers, version and size. The final tab gives a list of files installed.
How about you *use* Sharepoint for at least 1/10th of a second before making moronic statements like this?
In any case, they're not throwing away:
1) TCO- it comes with Office now, and they already own Office.
2) Security- it's hard to find something to compare Sharepoint to, security-wise, since there's literally no competing software out there. But its security is sufficient for two reasons: first, it runs on intranets only and isn't exposed to the internet, and second there haven't been any huge vulnerabilities announced for it yet.
3) Ease of administration- Sharepoint makes every manager an administrator of their particular sub-site. And it's easy enough that I've seen many non-technical managers operate it correctly with no problems whatsoever. So not only is it easy to administer, but it's easy to administer for non-techs.
4) Power- Since there's no competing product in the marketplace, it's really hard to talk about power. So I won't.
5) "All the free enterprise proven software available"- Since companies using Sharepoint generally aren't using Linux, they're not throwing anything away. Sharepoint may not be free, but it's definitely enterprise-proven. After all, Microsoft is one of the biggest enterprises there is, and they use it all over on a daily basis... I doubt any Linux-based software of this type can say that much.
All that aside, the main thing you're missing is that Sharepoint is a *lot* more than a "glorified calendar and wiki program" and that, right now, there is literally ZERO competition. The reason Microsoft has a monopoly is not because their software is so great, but because, in a lot of areas, they have barely any competition. If the Linux community really wants to displace Office/Sharepoint, then they're going to have to make an alternate to it that's as easy to use as and as functional, and I don't see that happening.
(For example, most Linux users will refuse to admit that OpenOffice isn't as good as Office, or that GIMP isn't as good as Photoshop. Until those blinders come off, those products will never improve enough to compete with Office or Photoshop. Of course, GIMP's developers have their head so far up their ass, it'll likely never compete with Photoshop regardless.)
Comment of the year
Why do you assume that the two are mutually exclusive? You don't think people are capable of making a decision based on years of frustration and pain, and deriving a logical solution to their problem?
Let me tell you something: I loathe Microsoft professionally. I avoid it whenever I can. I use their products as little as possible, to the extent that I will invest time and effort in creating an alternative rather than to use theirs.
That said, I'm objective enough to give credit where credit is due. Some of their products, for better or for worse, are the best available right now. Where that's the case, I either advocate using their products or creating something better, or both.
But when I look at what Microsoft has done - and continues to do - to the world of software, I cringe. I get really angry. I actively work to oppose them, and to find viable alternatives. The fact that I apply myself with a passion doesn't take anything away from my objectivity. So kindly leave your Platonic false dichotomies at the door, and accept that people can on occasion walk and chew bubble gum at the same time.
(P.S. If you don't think there's any reason to have strong feelings about Microsoft, you haven't been in the business long enough.)
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.